Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the appellant does not meet the eligibility criteria for Post-9/11 GI Bill (Chapter 33) educational assistance benefits due to insufficient qualifying active duty service.

The Board has remanded the case due to scheduling issues for a hearing, and no specific decision on service connection or other claims is provided.

The Board is unclear whether the Veteran's Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits were terminated only for the period from July 23, 2010 to August 2, 2010 or for the entire term from June 28, 2010 to August 2, 2010. The case is REMANDED to clarify this and determine the appropriate disposition.

The Veteran's request for an extension of the period of eligibility for Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance beyond August 29, 2010 was denied as he did not present evidence that a disability prevented him from initiating or completing an education program prior to this date.

The Veteran's neuritis of the left upper extremity was initially rated at 10 percent and has been increased to a maximum of 30 percent for the period from March 9, 1998 until July 12, 2006.,The Veteran also filed a claim for TDIU, which is addressed in the REMAND portion of this decision.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have legal entitlement to MGIB benefits for an examination taken on October 23, 2009 due to his eligibility period ending on that date.

The Board granted the appellant's petition for an earlier effective date of April 5, 2010, for his election of education benefits under Chapter 33 in lieu of Chapter 30.

The Board found that the Veteran's residuals of CVA were not shown to be directly related to service or a service-connected disability, and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's right knee disability, including an anterior cruciate ligament tear and a medial meniscal tear, is rated at the maximum allowable under Diagnostic Code 5257 (instability of the knee). Additionally, his degenerative joint disease is rated at 30% based on severe limitation of motion. The appeal for higher ratings has been granted.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of basic eligibility for nonservice-connected death pension, and as a result, the appellant is now eligible for such benefits.

The Board found that the appellant's July 6, 2010, substantive appeal was not timely filed and denied the claim.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Veteran's claim is being remanded to the AMC for scheduling a Travel Board hearing at his local RO in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The case will be returned to the Board after the scheduled hearing.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for retroactive Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code as her application was not submitted within one year of the August 2008 rating decision granting DEA based on cause of death.

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the appellant, and thus has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim.

The Veteran's claim for a book stipend from August 23, 2010 to December 17, 2010 was denied as he was on active duty during the first day of enrollment at the University of Oklahoma.

The appeal has been dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and scheduling a new examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected foot disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received since the January 2010 statement of the case, including updated Improved Pension Eligibility Verification Report and Medical Expense Report. The issue is whether the Veteran's income was a bar to receiving nonservice-connected pension benefits with special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding the relationship between the Veteran's left hip disorder and his service-connected right knee disability, as well as other potential etiologies.